Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art
NanoGPT
41–50 of 334 posts
Re: NanoGPT
#42Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art
Model size does not necessarily correlates to quality of results. "Chinchilla (70B) Greatly Outperforms GPT-3 (175B) and Gopher (280B)" - https://towardsdatascience.com/a-new-ai-trend-chinchilla-70b...
A larger discussion is that the scaling laws achieve loss-optimal compute time, but the pre-training loss only improves predictions on the corpus, which contains texts written by people that were wrong or whose prose was lacking. In a real system, what you want to optimize for is accuracy, composability, inventiveness.
[0]: https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT/blob/master/scaling_laws...
Re: NanoGPT
#43Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art
What does “355 years” mean in this context? I assume it’s not human years
Re: NanoGPT
#44Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art
Re: NanoGPT
#45Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art
What do you mean by "small players have no chance"? OpenAI was founded in 2015, it used to be a "small player" which just got things right and grew with it - we're not talking of Google or Facebook investing a chunk of their billions cash. In Germany, AlephAlpha has built their own supercomputer and are training similar sized models. It's expensive for sure, but well in the possibilities of startups. In France resear…
On the contrary, in this thread we are are mainly talking about that.
Re: NanoGPT
#46Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art
What does “355 years” mean in this context? I assume it’s not human years
https://lambdalabs.com/blog/demystifying-gpt-3
"We are waiting for OpenAI to reveal more details about the training infrastructure and model implementation. But to put things into perspective, GPT-3 175B model required 3.14E23 FLOPS of computing for training. Even at theoretical 28 TFLOPS for V100 and lowest 3 year reserved cloud pricing we could find, this will take 355 GPU-years and cost $4.6M for a single training run. Similarly, a single RTX 8000, assuming 15 TFLOPS, would take 665 years to run."
Re: NanoGPT
#47Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art
What this tells you is that there is very little money in optimizing deep learning and that NVIDIA has made it very easy to just throw more hardware at then problem.
Re: NanoGPT
#48Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art
Could this be distributed? Put all those mining GPUs to work. A lot of people like participating in public projects like this. I would!
There is also Federated Learning which seemed to start taking off, but then interest rapidly declined.
Re: NanoGPT
#49Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art
Could this be distributed? Put all those mining GPUs to work. A lot of people like participating in public projects like this. I would!
Re: NanoGPT
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but to be fair, the system that does the training really sucks and doesn’t scale.
Neither does OpenAI. It costs so much and still delivers so little. A human can generate breakthroughs in science and tech that can be used to reduce carbon emissions. ChatGPT can do no such thing.